Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck? I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased. Thanks
I can't find reviews on any Orthodox sites. Is it a new publication? Maybe the book has not yet caught the attention of the Orthodox?NMHS said:Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck? I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased. Thanks
Unbiased? The title is outright blasphemy.NMHS said:Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck? I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased. Thanks
Not really. Sorry.Fabio Leite said:The book has been reviewd in another topic:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23968.0.html
He talks of the church "as hologram". And I thought this was a novel idea.NMHS said:Whoa, I was thinking this might have been a decent book to read and since I their isn't much review on this I wanted to ask on this site. So as I said in my original post I have a limited knowledge and I thought it appeared to be unbiased and it appears that may not be so. Please explain to me why you have the opinions that you do. I would definatley like to know more. I thought this book was pro-orthodox?
here are some reviews of the book
http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611
How so? Assuming one believes:Orual said:Unbiased? The title is outright blasphemy.
I think it's not at all about whose fault it was, but about the right belief about Christ and what He came to do.theistgal said:b) the Schism was the fault of both East and West, and
I've read bits of it on google. I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.NMHS said:Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck? I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased. Thanks
I know, sorry. I was just thinking "aloud".theistgal said:Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster. K?![]()
The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.elijahmaria said:I've read bits of it on google. I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.NMHS said:Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck? I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased. Thanks
M.
I think it would be safe to say that many of us see these assumptions in and of themselves as blasphemy.theistgal said:How so? Assuming one believes:Orual said:Unbiased? The title is outright blasphemy.
a) the Church is the Body of Christ,
b) the Schism was the fault of both East and West, and
c) some form of the Branch Theory (i.e. both churches are still part of the original Body in some way),
it doesn't seem blasphemous. (I'm not saying I believe all/any of these things, though I might, but just pointing out, it makes sense in that context.)
You had to work really hard at some of this.Irish Hermit said:The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.elijahmaria said:I've read bits of it on google. I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.NMHS said:Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck? I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased. Thanks
M.
We have Pope Benedict in Rome idiotically insisting that the Orthodox do not regard a second marriage as sacrament.
We have Mary Lanser making out that the Orthodox are OK with abortion.
We have Cardinal Kasper trying to pretend that we have always had a teaching of universal primacy.
It just gets worse. Please, Catholics, stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy! You're killing the dialogue.
A is correct. Period. The Church is the Body of Christ.theistgal said:And many of you do not. So which group is correctN
No hard work was involved, Mary. These three things came straight to mind.elijahmaria said:You had to work really hard at some of this.Irish Hermit said:The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.elijahmaria said:I've read bits of it on google. I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.NMHS said:Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck? I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased. Thanks
M.
We have Pope Benedict in Rome idiotically insisting that the Orthodox do not regard a second marriage as sacrament.
We have Mary Lanser making out that the Orthodox are OK with abortion.
We have Cardinal Kasper trying to pretend that we have always had a teaching of universal primacy.
It just gets worse. Please, Catholics, stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy! You're killing the dialogue.
Not all Orthodox clergy or hierarchs that I know disagree too terribly much with the Pope concerning second marriages, I have discovered, since you made a big roar about it on Irenikon. So you are not convincing me with your own disapproval of his comments. Not all Orthodox priests and bishops hold your views on sex and marriage, and your bishop's views of course. So I accept that and move on but I see no truth in your making a fuss till universal Orthodoxy gets it all worked out to the satisfaction of all.Irish Hermit said:No hard work was involved, Mary. These three things came straight to mind.elijahmaria said:You had to work really hard at some of this.Irish Hermit said:The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.elijahmaria said:I've read bits of it on google. I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.NMHS said:Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck? I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased. Thanks
M.
We have Pope Benedict in Rome idiotically insisting that the Orthodox do not regard a second marriage as sacrament.
We have Mary Lanser making out that the Orthodox are OK with abortion.
We have Cardinal Kasper trying to pretend that we have always had a teaching of universal primacy.
It just gets worse. Please, Catholics, stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy! You're killing the dialogue.
Leaving aside your own confusion about Orthodox teaching on abortion, what do we see?
We see two senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church completely at sea over significant Orthodox teaching.
1. The Pope - floundering and in error about the Orthodox teaching on marriage
2. Cardinal Kasper, just retired head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - clueless about Orthodox ecclesiology.
Where the heck is the dialogue going to go when the Pope and the Cardinal charged with "Promoting Christian Unity" are floundering?
Does anybody know if Cleenwerck addresses the Vatican's ignorance of Orthodoxy and how it impacts the dialogue?
Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.theistgal said:Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster. K?![]()
I challenge you to tell us outright that you know Orthodox bishops and priests who deny that a second marriage is a sacrament. If you are not willing to state that, then please stop misleading the members of this forum by cunningly giving such an impression.elijahmaria said:Not all Orthodox clergy or hierarchs that I know disagree too terribly much with the Pope concerning second marriages, I have discovered, since you made a big roar about it on Irenikon.Irish Hermit said:No hard work was involved, Mary. These three things came straight to mind.elijahmaria said:You had to work really hard at some of this.Irish Hermit said:The continuing dialogue is a bit of a mess, with the Catholics trying to propagate multiple misconceptions in their understanding of Orthodoxy.elijahmaria said:I've read bits of it on google. I think he still misses some full understanding of some parts of Catholic teachings but he does a much better job of representing them than I am accustomed to seeing in Orthodox texts or on the Internet so I think it is a pretty fair starting point for continuing dialogue.NMHS said:Has anyone read this book written by Laruent Cleenwerck? I am currently reading it and to my very limited knowledge of history it seems very unbiased. Thanks
M.
We have Pope Benedict in Rome idiotically insisting that the Orthodox do not regard a second marriage as sacrament.
We have Mary Lanser making out that the Orthodox are OK with abortion.
We have Cardinal Kasper trying to pretend that we have always had a teaching of universal primacy.
It just gets worse. Please, Catholics, stop misrepresenting Orthodoxy! You're killing the dialogue.
Leaving aside your own confusion about Orthodox teaching on abortion, what do we see?
We see two senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church completely at sea over significant Orthodox teaching.
1. The Pope - floundering and in error about the Orthodox teaching on marriage
2. Cardinal Kasper, just retired head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - clueless about Orthodox ecclesiology.
Where the heck is the dialogue going to go when the Pope and the Cardinal charged with "Promoting Christian Unity" are floundering?
Does anybody know if Cleenwerck addresses the Vatican's ignorance of Orthodoxy and how it impacts the dialogue?
I am flabbergasted! This is a lie. I recently spent a couple of months on your e-group at Yahoo! and there I encountered the perverse opinions of a young convert to Orthodoxy, writing of his own virginal state, under the tutelage of Fr Ambrose Young. His attitude to sex and marriage would, in my humble opinion, be sufficient to bring into play, should he ever seek ordination, the canon which forbids the ordination of people with such attitudes to marriage.elijahmaria said:I've watched you holler at other Orthodox faithful and clergy over sexual and marital morality issues for over a decade....
There's always the Oriental.Wyatt said:Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.theistgal said:Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster. K?![]()
Which is why I didn't say "neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox," I said Orthodox which I used as an all encompassing term for Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox.Jetavan said:There's always the Oriental.Wyatt said:Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.theistgal said:Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster. K?![]()
By "non-Chalcedonian" do you include the Assyrian Church of the East?Wyatt said:Which is why I didn't say "neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox," I said Orthodox which I used as an all encompassing term for Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox.Jetavan said:There's always the Oriental.Wyatt said:Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.theistgal said:Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster. K?![]()
Orthodox are so big on saying that the rock is not St. Peter but rather his confession of faith that Christ is Lord. So if the Church is built on the rock of faith in the Lordship of Christ, then all the text seems to imply is that the confession of Christ's lordship will never die, even until the end of time. How that gets convoluted into meaning a particular hierarchal system will remain unified without error until the end of this age is beyond me.Wyatt said:Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.theistgal said:Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster. K?![]()
No, I meant Oriental Orthodoxy.Jetavan said:By "non-Chalcedonian" do you include the Assyrian Church of the East?
So you believe that when Christ said that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, He was simply saying that the confession of His being Lord will never die? Isn't that a rather Protestant way of thinking, the idea that Jesus is all that matters and that a Church is unnecessary?Alveus Lacuna said:Orthodox are so big on saying that the rock is not St. Peter but rather his confession of faith that Christ is Lord. So if the Church is built on the rock of faith in the Lordship of Christ, then all the text seems to imply is that the confession of Christ's lordship will never die, even until the end of time. How that gets convoluted into meaning a particular hierarchal system will remain unified without error until the end of this age is beyond me.
Both groups call themselves Orthodox, so unless one is decided that the Orientals are not Orthodox in the same way as the Byzantines, then referring to one as "Orthodox" and the other as "Oriental" is misleading. I don't see why people can't just speak of one as Byzantine and one as Oriental.Jetavan said:There's always the Oriental.Wyatt said:Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.theistgal said:Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster. K?![]()
The ACE is not non-Chalcedonian in the same sense as the Orientals because it is also non-Ephesine. Furthermore, I don't believe that it is at all common to refer to them as Orthodox.Jetavan said:By "non-Chalcedonian" do you include the Assyrian Church of the East?Wyatt said:Which is why I didn't say "neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox," I said Orthodox which I used as an all encompassing term for Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox.Jetavan said:There's always the Oriental.Wyatt said:Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.theistgal said:Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster. K?![]()
I don't know where you get the idea that the clause "and the gates of Hades shall never prevail against it" was referring to the rock rather than the Church.Alveus Lacuna said:Orthodox are so big on saying that the rock is not St. Peter but rather his confession of faith that Christ is Lord. So if the Church is built on the rock of faith in the Lordship of Christ, then all the text seems to imply is that the confession of Christ's lordship will never die, even until the end of time. How that gets convoluted into meaning a particular hierarchal system will remain unified without error until the end of this age is beyond me.Wyatt said:Yet, really it is very much blasphemy. It suggests that neither Catholic nor Orthodox hold "the Truth" but only a piece of the truth. This suggests that Christ's own words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church is a lie.theistgal said:Fabio, please note I was not arguing the point, just pointing out why the title of the book need not be interpreted as "blasphemy" per an earlier poster. K?![]()
Right. Christ is definitely talking about the Church in this passage. The messy part is that the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East all trace their roots back to the Apostles and all claim to exclusively be this Church which Christ speaks of. This makes for a difficult situation because the believer has to discern for themselves which one of these Churches is actually the Church.deusveritasest said:I don't know where you get the idea that the clause "and the gates of Hades shall never prevail against it" was referring to the rock rather than the Church.
I don't know about the ACE. I have not yet once heard a member of the ACE claim that they are the Church to the exclusion of the others, whereas I have numerous times with the other three, though not with absolute consistency.Wyatt said:The messy part is that the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East all trace their roots back to the Apostles and all claim to exclusively be this Church which Christ speaks of.
For sure.Wyatt said:This makes for a difficult situation because the believer has to discern for themselves which one of these Churches is actually the Church.